Bounded solidarity? Experimental evidence on cross-national bonding in the EU during the COVID crisis

IF 3.6 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
IOANA-ELENA OANA, ZBIGNIEW TRUCHLEWSKI
{"title":"Bounded solidarity? Experimental evidence on cross-national bonding in the EU during the COVID crisis","authors":"IOANA-ELENA OANA,&nbsp;ZBIGNIEW TRUCHLEWSKI","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Most studies on European solidarity (‘bonding’) during COVID-19 lack a baseline comparison with outside states. We, therefore, cannot say whether European solidarity is universal or geared towards European Union (EU) insiders (‘bounding’). We thus ask whether European solidarity is ‘bounded’, that is, whether it relies on differentiation between European insiders and outsiders. We argue that if existent, bounded solidarity constitutes a <i>long-term</i> and <i>thick</i> basis for institutional building. To explore this ‘bonding–bounding’ dynamic, we use a vignette experiment embedded into an original survey collected in eight European countries (<i>n</i> ∼ 8900), covering all European regions. Our design varies the countries receiving solidarity, and the channels (EU level vs. member state level), policy domains (health vs. economy) and instruments (loans, grants, medical equipment, vaccines) through which solidarity is provided. Regarding bounding, we find that most countries are more solidaristic with EU countries than an outsider, baseline state (Peru), Italy excepted. There is, nonetheless, a strong heterogeneity between countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden mostly want to help themselves and Southern member states, but not Central Eastern European member states, which we show is due to their perceived obstructionism related to the Rule of Law debate. Concerning the nature of solidarity, we find that most respondents prefer solidarity to be channelled through the EU and loans, with evidence suggesting a freeriding mechanism behind this preference. All in all, our results indicate that EU citizens form a distinct community of solidarity which, in line with a Rokkanian understanding of polity formation, plays a key role in political development and consolidation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 3","pages":"815-838"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12636","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Political Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12636","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most studies on European solidarity (‘bonding’) during COVID-19 lack a baseline comparison with outside states. We, therefore, cannot say whether European solidarity is universal or geared towards European Union (EU) insiders (‘bounding’). We thus ask whether European solidarity is ‘bounded’, that is, whether it relies on differentiation between European insiders and outsiders. We argue that if existent, bounded solidarity constitutes a long-term and thick basis for institutional building. To explore this ‘bonding–bounding’ dynamic, we use a vignette experiment embedded into an original survey collected in eight European countries (n ∼ 8900), covering all European regions. Our design varies the countries receiving solidarity, and the channels (EU level vs. member state level), policy domains (health vs. economy) and instruments (loans, grants, medical equipment, vaccines) through which solidarity is provided. Regarding bounding, we find that most countries are more solidaristic with EU countries than an outsider, baseline state (Peru), Italy excepted. There is, nonetheless, a strong heterogeneity between countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden mostly want to help themselves and Southern member states, but not Central Eastern European member states, which we show is due to their perceived obstructionism related to the Rule of Law debate. Concerning the nature of solidarity, we find that most respondents prefer solidarity to be channelled through the EU and loans, with evidence suggesting a freeriding mechanism behind this preference. All in all, our results indicate that EU citizens form a distinct community of solidarity which, in line with a Rokkanian understanding of polity formation, plays a key role in political development and consolidation.

Abstract Image

有限制的团结?COVID 危机期间欧盟跨国团结的实验证据
COVID-19 期间关于欧洲团结("结合")的大多数研究都缺乏与外部国家的基线比较。因此,我们无法断定欧洲团结是普遍的还是面向欧盟内部的("约束")。因此,我们要问欧洲团结是否是 "有界限的",即它是否依赖于欧洲内部人和外部人之间的区别。我们认为,有界限的团结如果存在,就为制度建设奠定了长期而坚实的基础。为了探索这种 "纽带-约束 "动态,我们使用了一个小插曲实验,将其嵌入到在八个欧洲国家(n ∼ 8900)收集的原始调查中,涵盖了所有欧洲地区。我们的设计改变了接受互助的国家,以及提供互助的渠道(欧盟层面与成员国层面)、政策领域(卫生与经济)和工具(贷款、赠款、医疗设备、疫苗)。在界限方面,我们发现大多数国家与欧盟国家的团结程度高于外来者、基准国(秘鲁),但意大利除外。然而,国家之间的差异也很大:法国、德国、荷兰和瑞典大多希望帮助自己和南部成员国,但不希望帮助中东欧成员国。关于团结的性质,我们发现大多数受访者更倾向于通过欧盟和贷款来实现团结,有证据表明这种倾向背后存在着一种免费机制。总之,我们的研究结果表明,欧盟公民形成了一个独特的团结群体,根据罗康纳对政体形成的理解,这个群体在政治发展和巩固中发挥着关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: European Journal of Political Research specialises in articles articulating theoretical and comparative perspectives in political science, and welcomes both quantitative and qualitative approaches. EJPR also publishes short research notes outlining ongoing research in more specific areas of research. The Journal includes the Political Data Yearbook, published as a double issue at the end of each volume.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信